Egg on my face......

[tikay]

The criteria for choosing a Sky Poker Analyst? Again, exclude me from this. I just got lucky.

Let's start at the wrong end here.

A recent survey of Sky Poker players was answered by over 2,000 Account Holders, & much was learned about how viewer & players perceive the Show, the Cardroom, the Presenters, & the Analysts.

The purpose of the Show is clear - to help drive traffic to the Cardroom, & raise the profile of the Site. Obviously.

That is achieved (stunningly successfully, as an aside), by employing Analysts who have some or all of these skills.

1) Ability to Entertain whilst Analysing & commentating. 3 hours of dull Hand Analysis is too much for even the geekiest of poker geeks. So it needs mixing up a bit, some humour, some heavy stuff, some serious advice, some colour.

2) A sound knowledge of basic poker skills. The difference between, say, Raising with poo & calling with poo is as obvious as night follows day to you, but to a lot of newbies, it is not. You don't have to have a good poker CV to do the job, but you do need to know the basics well. So we have guys like James Browning, with a huge Circuit Track Record, Ed Giddens & Mark Banin ditto, Tom Sambrook, Casper Berry, Tim Peters, & Matt being more cash game specialists. Jason Barrasford, well he knows his poker, too, but he is also a great entertainer, & the balance between poker skills & entertaiment skills varies. 

3) The ability to function normally & articulate well in a TV Studio, with 4 cameras in different places, 3 peeps shouting down your ear, "hurry up, slow down, mention this, don't mention that, da de da". Some folks who gabber 13 to the dozen in real-life freeze up in front of Cameras. It's also physicaly demanding, because including rehearsals, you have to pretty much stand still for 4 hours, & look & sound cheerful & upbeat throughout.

So, there you have it, all the Analysts fit those criteria pretty well, to a lesser or greater degree.  Remember, I excluded myself from the reply, but I get by, sort of middle-of-the roadish in all departments.

A point of confusion amongst many is the difference betwen Presenters, & Analysts. They are totally, 100%, different things. Analysts do exactly that, whereas Presenters "drive" The Show, & need not, necessarily, have any particular poker skills, though most do. The Presenters include Richard Orford, Norman Pace, Trevor Harris, Michelle Orpe, Paul Musselle, Helen Chamberlain, D P Fitzgerald. Every one of them has superbly professional TV Presentational skills, a must for the role. Most have, as a bonus, reasonably good poker skills, too.

Whiich is all I can say really. And fails, I guess, to answer the question you really wanted to ask, but did not dare, for fear of causing offence.

How on earth did Compo get the job? (He both Presents, & Analyses).

Baffled me, too.

[tikay]

how are the analysts chosen? Apart from the right honourable lord kendall I have seen some very suspect advice given.

I'll answer this later, (out of time right now) as best as I can, because I don't really know, but I DO know the criteria.

Michelle Orpe - I think that's obvious.

The rest - meh, who cares.

Do keep up please Matt. Miss Orpe is a Presenter, not an Analyst.

Does Compo not do things for you?

[GreekStein]

Hi Tikay,

will post on this later as I'm still at the office (FML) and don't have time if I want to get home at all tonight.

Just quickly though, I hope my post didn't offend you at all - that wasn't my intention.

Cheers,

Cos

[tikay]

Hi Tikay,

will post on this later as I'm still at the office (FML) and don't have time if I want to get home at all tonight.

Just quickly though, I hope my post didn't offend you at all - that wasn't my intention.

Cheers,

Cos

Offend me? Absoutely not! I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I LOVED the question, & I loved answeing it, as best as I could, anyway. Everything I do, I do full on, & I love my work at Sky Poiker, hence the gushingly long & undoubtedly boring reply.

It was just a full & honest answer to what I took as a straight question, with no hidden agenda.

Laterz.

[lazaroonie]

how are the analysts chosen? Apart from the right honourable lord kendall I have seen some very suspect advice given.

I'll answer this later, (out of time right now) as best as I can, because I don't really know, but I DO know the criteria.

Michelle Orpe - I think that's obvious.

The rest - meh, who cares.

Do keep up please Matt. Miss Orpe is a Presenter, not an Analyst.

Does Compo not do things for you?

only when trying to pronounce the name of french horses...made me all moist so it did....

[boldie]

how are the analysts chosen? Apart from the right honourable lord kendall I have seen some very suspect advice given.

I'll answer this later, (out of time right now) as best as I can, because I don't really know, but I DO know the criteria.

Michelle Orpe - I think that's obvious.

The rest - meh, who cares.

Do keep up please Matt. Miss Orpe is a Presenter, not an Analyst.

Does Compo not do things for you?

only when trying to pronounce the name of french horses...made me all moist so it did....

[Dubai]

I would check fold. Its still early in the comp and if you check fold you have enough chips to carry on playing, i dont think we should be risking our tournament life with a one pair hand

[action man]

I would check fold. Its still early in the comp and if you check fold you have enough chips to carry on playing, i dont think we should be risking our tournament life with a one pair hand

$8.44*  plz grimmer

[LutonGboi]

Too tight before the QQ? Thats the root cause...

[tikay]

Too tight before the QQ? Thats the root cause...

Too tight - for the entire 6 minutes?

[AlexMartin]

Shove.


Betting to induce this shallow is ridic imo, what is he going to shove the flop with that he won't call a shove with?

A7/A6ns, Js10/XXXXXXXXXX lots of combos imo.

[LutonGboi]

Too tight before the QQ? Thats the root cause...

Too tight - for the entire 6 minutes?

yeah...loosen up your starting requirements

[Billygoat]

The only thing that I am surprised no-one has mentioned is your open to 450. Perhaps as a moron I am missing something, but I cannot remember the last time I read any strategy that agrees opening 9xbb is ever optimal. Or as you stated, you were confident he wouldn't pay any consideration to the size of the open and merely want to see a flop because his hand was pretty or some other tard reasoning.

I suppose what I am asking is was opening to 450 good/bad/necessary?

[MANTIS01]

The only thing that I am surprised no-one has mentioned is your open to 450. Perhaps as a moron I am missing something, but I cannot remember the last time I read any strategy that agrees opening 9xbb is ever optimal. Or as you stated, you were confident he wouldn't pay any consideration to the size of the open and merely want to see a flop because his hand was pretty or some other tard reasoning.

I suppose what I am asking is was opening to 450 good/bad/necessary?

Given I have "profile" on the Site, & I tend to get called by a very wide range of hands there, I decide to Over-Raise, & make it 450 to go, I want to build a decent Pot, as I won't be playing many hands early doors, so here's a chance to get a playable stack. I want & almost expect the BB to Call, given his performance so far, & the others to all Pass. I get it right, that's exactly what happened. So, just me & the very active BB now.